Forgiving the Unrepentant

In this week's Christianity Today, R. T. Kendall answers a question about forgiving the unrepentant.  He begins by pointing out that many, if not most, of those who offend us will be unrepentant over it.  This poses a huge problem for us.  Whenever I speak on forgiveness, inevitably someone will ask me what to do about the one who is unrpentant.  Kendall's words got me thinking about this issue of non-repentance. 

Allow me to invite you to engage in a little exercise.  Think of all the people who you know who have offended you or someone else that you are aware of.  Now, answer the following questions:

• How many of them don't even know that they have offended someone else?
• How many of them know they have offended someone else, but they think that the other person has misunderstood them and is just being a little too sensitive, or touchy?
• How many of them know they have offended someone but feel that the other person is at least partially to blame?
• How many of them believe that someone else's sin against them justifies their own sin against that person?
• How many of them are sorry for what they have done, but not really "sorry enough" in the eyes of the one whom they have offended?
• How many of them are cold-hearted and just don't really care whom they offend?

If you go down that list you will find that the vast (overwhelming) majority of folks fall into one of those categories and thus they are not and probably will never come to repentance for their sins. And if they do come to repentance for their sins, in all likelihood their repentance will not seem deep enough for the one who was offended.

I was in a tire store today waiting for a flat repair and happened to be stuck there with a very chatty gentleman.  He pontificated on all kinds of matters and told me stories about his life which was lived in some very tough and crime ridden places.  He apparently knew all about life in drug infested and crime ridden areas and had some strong opinions on how to handle some of these criminals.  At one point he described to me what he thinks should be done to child-rapists and he described it in brutal and excruciating detail.  He said that if we would get medievel on them this would solve alot of crime.

Although I was a bit uncomfortable with listening to him, something in me said "yes, such people deserve such punishment."  The unspoken presupposition that he had, and that I was agreeing with in my inner man is that the offender should suffer to the same or a greater degree as the offended.
Yet this is the antithesis of the Christian gospel, and it shows just how far my heart is from a true love for the gospel.  But this is also the essence of what goes on in the mind of someone who has not forgiven someone else. 

Christians who want to forgive based on repentance basically want the offender to suffer like the offended.  This is why, when an offender apologizes, the offended person will often withhold forgiveness, or will still keep some emotions in reserve.  There is this sense that true repentance can only come through commensurate suffering.  In such a mindset, true repentance can't be demonstrated merely by words or even some type of material restitution.  The "truly repentant" person will show their "true repentannce" by their ability to identify with the sufferings of the offended.

The one who is offended may need to see tears in the eyes of the offender, or some expression of self-loathing on the part of the offender.  Only in such cases will the offended party feel that the offender has truly repented.

But, as I said, such an attitude is far from the gospel.  R. T. Kendall says this:

One of Jesus' main teachings was that we love our enemies, pray for them, and do good to those who have hurt us.  It is curious how some of us read the Gospels over and over and miss this.  We may get  the theology, but not the graciousness that Jesus taught and exemplified.

How much repentance do you suppose there was at the Cross while Jesus hung there?  There was not only an utter absence of repentance, but also total contempt.  Jesus' reply: "Father, forgive them because they do not know what they are doing."  (Luke 23:34)

So, at one point are we to extend forgiveness, or should I instead ask "how much repentance must be evident before I extend forgiveness?"  The example of Jesus says that we are to extend forgiveness at the time when there is absolutely no repentance and even while the offender is holding us in, and treating us with, utter contempt.

The fact is that most people whom we need to forgive will never see a need to repent of their actions against us.  But this is should be no barrier to forgiveness.

Comments

[Milton Stanley]

Good stuff, David. You have some good, practical insights here on forgiveness and the attitude of Jesus. I wrote about your post today at my blog. Peace.

[paul]

I recommend Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy. It addresses this and many other issues in excellent thinking fashion.

[R. C. Smith]

David:

I like your analysis, but I think I disagree with your conclusion. I see this question as having two motives: an honest desire to understand the Bible's ethical teaching about forgiveness and an attempt to get away with the least amount of forgiveness that we can. No doubt the latter is by far the more common. All of us think this way some times and most of us all of the time. As a pastor you rightly focus on nipping that in the bud.

But I don't think God himself can forgive unrepentant sinners in the strictest sense. His holiness will not permit it. If he could, the whole sacrificial atonement would be a waste of time.

The trick is that God is able to grant repentance to those who are his enemies. He, unlike any human individual or government, is able to make people repentant. I think we can agree that we will never be in that position even in heaven. In fact we would not be able to achieve such an effect even if we were without original sin. It is a prerogative of the creator that he doesn't share with his creatures.

Looking through the teachings of Jesus involving forgiveness, I note that he never specifically commands that, although there are several places where he doesn't mention repentance as a prerequisite (the Lord's Prayer being an obvious example), he never says in so many words, "you must forgive even if your enemy does not repent."

Which brings us back to the cross and Mr. Kendall's comment. First, note that Jesus does not say, "I forgive you" but rather he prays to the Father to forgive them. This may seem pedantic, but I think it is a significant distinction. As Calvinists we do not believe that everyone obtains forgiveness, but only those whom God has chosen. Since we mortals do not know who these elect are, it is perfectly consistent to pray for the unrepentant. But that isn't the same as offering them forgiveness.

Second, part of Jesus' prayer pleads extenuating circumstances: "forgive them... they know not what they do." This seems to me a different issue than mere repentance. One of the reasons that Matthew 18:15-35 works so well in practice is that you must confront the person (first individually then before witnesses) in order to clear up potential misunderstandings. But, after the honest mistakes have been ruled out, if there is still no repentance, Jesus specifically says that we must treat the offender as an unbeliever. Of course, this does not mean that we may respond with enmity and a desire for vengeance. At such a point, the matter rests in God's hands and we are limited to praying for their conversion and repentance.

I am glad you brougt up the issue of legal punishment. Governemts are instituted to establish peace and order, but not necessarily happiness. I think the answer to the delimma you mention is that laws ought to be aimed at simple restitution and deterrence, not punishment. So the criminal, even if repentant, should be made to fix what he has harmed (for instance in the case of theft or vandalism) and, if the harm is beyond what he can repay (as in the cases of rape or murder) he should be sent to the heavenly court to be judged. If this does not fully satisfy our sympathies with the victim, we should reflect that they themselves are sinners and alive only by God's grace. It is hard to say that briefly without sounding harsh, but I find great comfort in that thought when I have the time to delve into it.

I think that point is also a useful corrective when we are tempted to use the above arguments to justify our own hard-heartedness. While it true that unrepented sins are not promised forgiveness, we have been given much grace and should not be looking for excuses to skimp when it comes time to give a little to our neighbor. Again, Matthew 18 is the model here.

[rc]

forgiving the unrepentant: I don't know about going medievel on criminals, but, how about going Biblical? See, for example, Romans 13. Ro 13:4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Your chatty friend seems to have made a very good point. Our judicial system increasingly has accepted the false assumption that, deep down, man is really good. And what with the proper environment and education all will be made well. Scripture is, of course, very clear, man is, at the core, wicked. In His Wisdom and Grace, God has blessed all men with government to restrain and punish this evil which wells up in us all. Do not confuse the government's God given role with the Christian's responsibility to extend forgiveness. Nor lose sight of your chatty friend's wisdom; as believers in a representative democracy we have the responsibility of seeing to it that our elected officials do not neglect their God given duty to protect the 'inocent' from the criminals in the society.

[David E]

In private to some who knew RT Kendall privately he was seen to be a cruel person if there was nothing he could get from you e.g. things like money and fame or female attention. To people who were troubled by his actions he would threaten them saying "Touch not the Lord's annointed" RT Kendall is a first class scam artist. The man RT Kendall may be speaking about love and forgiveness which is what our Lord teaches but RT Kendall is getting tons of money from the books he writes HOWEVER - love and forgiveness is DEFINITELY not something you could see in this man's personal life. He does not possess these qualities and so how could he write about them? Go and do some research and don't believe everything you read. T